Effects of Evidence-Based Intervention on Teachers’ Mental Health Literacy: Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Sir/Mam
Please find bellow the requested review regarding the manuscript. Although it has some useful information there are less references and the statements are not established. I suggest the authors to write more information with references.
The article contains a lot of useful information on the issue. It is quite clear what is already known about this topic and the research question is clearly outlined. The abstract is too brief and introduction section involves too many information. The research question is not justified clearly, given what is already known about the topic. The results are not discussed from multiple angles and conclusions answer the aims of the study partially. The conclusions are partially supported by references or results and the limitations of the study fatal and it is questionable if there are opportunities to inform future research. Positive: There are some strengths of the article that could have an impact in the field, such as the topic and its impact on the existed literature. The manuscript is approved publication only after major changes.
Minor editing regarding grammar & syntax
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers
We greatly appreciate your taking the time to read carefully through and share your comments. We are grateful. Below is the feedback to the respective comments.
According to reviewer 1's comments, we have made the following modifications: Firstly, Reference is added. Please see references 63-66 for details. Secondly, we have revised the abstract and added to it as appropriate. Please see the abstract for details. Thirdly, we revised the introduction and removed some information. Please see 1. Introduction for details. Fourth, we conducted a more detailed review of existing studies and argued more clearly for two research questions. Please see 2. Literature Review and Research Questions. Fifth, we have re-discussed the results of this study from different perspectives in the context of existing studies. Please see 5. Discussion for details. Sixth, we answered the study objectives in full in the conclusion section. Please see 6.1. Research Conclusions for details. Lastly, we have added the limitations section of this study. Please see 6.2 Limitations and Future Directions of Research for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I agree that teachers must increase their knowledge and skills in dealing with mental health problems. You chose an interesting topic.
A systematic review should synthesize the evidence using critical methods to identify, define, and assess research on the topic. Which critical method/list did you use to evaluate the studies?
I am attaching a Word document with several editing recommendations to improve the English language of your manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Please see attached document.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewer
We greatly appreciate your taking the time to read carefully through and share your comments. We are grateful. Below is the feedback to the respective comments.
Abstract:
Line 9: Cultivation. – use the nurturing/ fostering/development
Line 12: Objective – use purpose
Line 14: Furnish - use the word provide
Line 22-23: The tracking effect value for knowledge…
Line 24-25: national development??
- 1, line 42: "Access to help is large.
P 2. Line 43: low level of mental
p.2, line 51: gatekeepers
- 2, line 59: interventions
p.2, line 62: experimental studies on interventions to improve…
- 2, lines 66-67: The economic development of countries….
p.2, line 73: Date should be placed after the authors' names: Jorm et al. (1997)
p.2, line 83: delete level
Same on line 85
Line 91: after the word classroom use a comma.
- 3, Lines 101-2: …relationship with students
Line 103: delete the word strategies after problem-solving
Line 107: Studies
Line 108: delete the word "corresponding
Line 122: add the word literacy
Line 136: use
Lines 142-145: rewrite it
- 4, line 48: delete etc and use e.g., before the word anxiety.
Line 150: delete the comma after al. because the year of publication is in between parentheses.
Line 154: what is the tracking effect?????
Starting on Line 158: A word must be added after the word experimental. Examples: study,
investigation
Line 166: Delete the comma after the word unfortunately; use a period instead.
Line 167: instead of national economic, use the economic situation of the country or something
similar.
Line 170: date in the wrong place
Starting on line 177: the paragraph needs to be rewritten.
There are several problems with the two last paragraphs on p. 4.
- 5, line 226: The search should have started in 1997 after Jorm and colleagues proposed the
term.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be in correct APA style.P. 10, lines 376-377: Incomplete sentence
Lines 398-399: What do the authors mean by…" the tracking effect was only significant with
knowledge.
The paragraph starting on line 408 should follow APA style.
All of the above have been revised in accordance with reviewer 2's comments. Please see the author's changes in the revised manuscript for details.
In all, we are grateful for your feedback shared on this document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your submission entitled “Effects of evidence-based intervention on teachers' mental health literacy: Systematic Review and a meta-analysis”. This is an interesting and generally well-conceived study on important emerging construct, i.e. mental health literacy. This study aims to undertake a thorough analysis of the experimental effects associated with enhancing teachers' mental health literacy. The purpose of the study is to provide credible evidence and novel approaches for enhancing teachers' mental health literacy. Five English databases and three Chinese databases were used to do a systematic search for controlled trials that looked at the immediate and long-term effects of the intervention experiment on teachers' mental health knowledge, anti-stigma, and willingness or behavior to seek help. There were a total of 20 experiments with 7446 subjects. The findings of this analysis showed that participating in intervention studies is an efficient way for teachers to improve their knowledge of mental health.
Based on the evidence presented, it appears that the arguments related to the gap in the study are weak. The reason for this is a lack of clear and convincing evidence to support the need for further research. Furthermore, the authors cannot adequately demonstrate the relevance and importance of the research question. In order to strengthen the arguments related to the gap in the study, additional studies should be included to provide more compelling evidence and demonstrate the study's potential impact on the field.
The authors should focus more on addressing what we already know about the topic before bringing in a gap, considering that the paper tries to fill in. This would make it clear to the readers why it is important to address the shortcomings in the literature. The fundamental argumentation related to the need for study is absent, more specifically in the introductory paragraphs.
Incorporating studies into a meta-analysis that have an inadequate methodology or have a low total number of participants can produce inaccurate estimates of the effect size. In conducting your meta-analysis, how did you evaluate the overall quality of the research that you included in it?
The discussion part is underdeveloped. In particular, the discussion needs to be more thorough and linked to your review of the literature.
While I found your meta-analysis paper interesting, I was disappointed to find no discussion of its limitations. To provide a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the findings, it would be useful if you could add a section outlining any potential weaknesses or limitations in your study.
I found the results of the current study to be quite enlightening and applaud the way it was carried out. On the other hand, I've noted that there are no parts that discuss the study's theoretical or practical contributions. Including such sections will help readers comprehend the implications of your findings in terms of expanding theoretical knowledge and informing practical applications, and it would be beneficial for you to include such sections. In light of this, I would be grateful if you could give some thought to including sections in your research that discuss theoretical and practical contributions.
Furthermore, I've observed that there is no conclusion section. The conclusion section of a research paper is a vital component since it enables the writers to repeat their research questions and objectives, as well as summarize the outcomes of their investigation. If there isn't a conclusion section, it is possible that the audience won't walk away with a solid grasp of the main point of the work and the insights that may be drawn from the research. For this reason, I would strongly suggest that you include a conclusion section in your paper so that you can present a conclusion to your research that is both more comprehensive and more significant.
As several flaws can be retrieved throughout the manuscript, further proofreading of the paper is warmly recommended.
I would like my recommendations to help the authors improve their work. I hope the authors will benefit from these suggestions and make the necessary amendments to strengthen the manuscript for later submission.
As several flaws can be retrieved throughout the manuscript, further proofreading of the paper is warmly recommended.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewer
We greatly appreciate your taking the time to read carefully through and share your comments. We are grateful. Below is the feedback to the respective comments.
According to reviewer 3's comments, we have made the following modifications: In the first place, we further argued the gaps in the existing studies as a way to demonstrate the relevance, significance, and potential impact of this study. Please see 2. Literature Review and Research Questions. Also, we made it clearer that our inquiry was conducted in strict accordance with the guidelines for meta-analysis methods (PRISMA). And the availability of peer review was used as one of the criteria to measure the quality of the included studies. Please see Appendices A and B for details.
Furthermore, we have re-discussed the results of this study from different perspectives in the context of existing studies. Please see 5. Discussion for details. Moreso, we have added the contribution of this study to the field. Please see 5.2 Subgroup Analysis Results. Also, we have added the conclusions of this study. Please see 6.1. Research Conclusions for details.
Last but not least, we have added the contribution of this study to the field. Please see 6.1. Research Conclusions for details. Finally, we have added the limitations section of this study. Please see 6.2 Limitations and Future Directions of Research.
In all, we are grateful for your feedback shared on this document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I agree with the comments
Minor editing regarding grammar & syntax
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The authors have revised the grammar and syntax of the manuscript based on your comments. Please see the revised version of the manuscript for more details.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved substantially the manuscript. It is a lot more clear than the original one. I still have one concern which is related to the research questions. The authors need to revise that section.
On p. 12, lines 503-506, the sentence is incomplete and needs to be rewritten.
There are still a few APA style errors as well as punctuation.
On p. 3, line 130, please delete the word BUT.
On p. 5, line 207, the word should be COMBINING.
On p. 11, line 440, delete the word AND. On line 453, add the subject..."As IT has been shown,..." There are other errors in that paragraph.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The authors have checked the manuscript again in light of your comments and have corrected the errors in the manuscript. Please see the revised version of the manuscript for more details.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, I carefully re-evaluated your paper, finding it substantially improved with respect to the version. The revised version is much better organized and has higher scientific quality. Therefore, I recommended it for publication. Thank you
Authors are advised to carefully review the revised version for any potential linguistic errors prior to publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The authors have rechecked the manuscript in light of your comments and corrected some language errors. Please see the revised version of the manuscript for more details.
